CRM-M-32844-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 330 CRM-M-32844-2026 Date of decision: 6th July, 2026 Sarabjeet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Kehar Singh Hissowal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate for the complainant. *** MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):- The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 97 dated 09.04.2026 registered under Sections 318(4) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) at Police Station Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur. 2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the complainant-Satnam Singh, alleging that he was married with Ramandeep Kaur on 26.10.2023, as per Sikh rites and ceremonies. Their marriage was fixed through mediation of one Sewak Singh, who had represented to the complainant and his family that Ramandeep Kaur had cleared her IELTS examination and if the complainant was married with PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32844-2026 -2- her, she would take him to Canada and would get him employed therein. The entire expenses of their engagement and marriage were incurred by the family of the complainant. Several gold and silver ornaments had been given to Ramandeep Kaur. Shortly after their marriage, on the insistence of Ramandeep Kaur, he had initiated action for making arrangements for sending her to Canada and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 38,38,160/-. She went abroad on 07.04.2024. Just three days prior to that, she left for her parental house with all the jewellery given by the complainant. After reaching Canada, she started misbehaving with the complainant. He was never called abroad by the accused, as assured by her family members and herself. It was also revealed that she was having relations with one Garry Khan. By alleging that his wife and her family members, including the petitioner, had cheated him, he prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings have been initiated and are underway. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, which has been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, vide order dated 06.05.2026. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she has been falsely implicated in this case. After marriage of the daughter of the petitioner with the complainant, she had stayed with the latter for a period of six months. She had cleared IELTS test for going abroad and had gone abroad on study visa with the consent of the complainant and his family members, who had taken responsibility to bear her educational and other expenses. However, PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32844-2026 -3- shortly after her reaching Canada, they stopped giving routine expenses to her daughter and started pressurizing her to call the complainant to Canada. Since her daughter was not having any work and was having study visa, thus, she was not in a position to call the complainant. But instead of understanding this, the complainant and his family members felt offended and falsely entangled them in this case after the visa application of the complainant was rejected by the Embassy of Government of Canada. It is argued that the ingredients for commission of subject offences are not at all attracted as against the petitioner. She is ready to join investigation. Her custodial interrogation is not required. No recovery is to be effected from her. The subject offence is triable by Magistrate. It is, therefore, argued that she deserves to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. 4. Status report has been filed. Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has argued that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, she does not deserve to be released on bail. Therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6. The petitioner in connivance with the co-accused, is alleged to have cheated the complainant by inducing him to part with a sum of Rs.38,38,160/- on the premise of sending his wife abroad on the assurance that she would sponsor him to Canada after reaching there. It is only on PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32844-2026 -4- thorough assessment of the evidence to be produced during trial that any conclusion as to involvement of the petitioner in commission of subject offence can be drawn and not at this stage. It is not the allegation against the petitioner that the disputed amount of money was usurped by her in any manner whatsoever. Rather, admittedly, the same was spent for sending the co-accused abroad. In the circumstances peculiar to this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is not required. It is well-settled proposition of law that pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentence. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to her surrendering before the Investigating/ Arresting Officer within a period of 15 days from today and her joining investigation and further subject to her furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer/arresting officer as and when required. (ii) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (iii) she shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32844-2026 -5- 7. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9. Since the main petition has already been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous. [MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 6th July, 2026 Parveen Sharma 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document